Warming up again! Amazon: Samsung 840 EVO 750GB 2.5-Inch SATA III $350.99

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,152
Ebay price is very tempting, especially if it doesn't charge tax (like Amazon does...). I would be satisfied with my SSD, but I'm considering a reformat due to my Windows getting bloated... and getting tired of being so space limited by 240GB.
 

T4rd

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
18,092
Guess it's not going to get any lower on Amazon anytime soon, so I'm going to have them price guarantee me now. I got it for $360 a few weeks ago, then it dropped to $350 the next week. I figured I could only get them to PM once, so I waited to see if it would go down further, then it jumped back up to $370 or something until now.
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,152
Ah, I just noticed Amazon has a bunch of non-Prime options of who to buy from anyway, so you don't necessarily have to pay sales tax. Some of them are still cheaper after S&H, too. Again pretty tempting.
 

MiG29TangentBoy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
376
Evo is cheaper mostly due to manufacturing methods. The Pro uses a different type of NAND: it uses MLC, which is older but faster. The regular 840 and the Evo use TLC, which is newer and cheaper to produce. Also, the Pro's MLC NAND is supposed to last much longer. However, this would only matter if you intend to use it for more than a decade.
Cheapest I see on eBay is $354.57. Amazon is the lesser and cheaper of two evils. Rakut-I MEAN-Buy is just asking for identity theft...good luck with that.
I just grabbed one so I don't have to be stuck on RAID anymore...this frees up my two 840 Pros for other purposes. Plus, Samsung Magician can be of use to me again, as it is useless in RAID.
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,152

I wish people would explain their citations. At least caption it with what you're trying to show. I'm just going to go ahead and take guesses about the gist of it:

- Regular 840 series (250 ish GB)--which uses the same flash type as the 840 EVO (?)--started reallocating sectors after 100TB data written (which is a hell of a lot anyway).
- After 300TB written (even more than a hell of a lot), the regular 840 had unrecoverable sectors.
- At about 600TB written, the regular 840's reallocated sector count added up to 3GB (wow holy crap that's... like nothing lol). Windows still showed the same capacity.
- Even at 600TB written, regular 840 drive performance was still the same.

The thing is though the (iirc) 840 EVO here would take 3 times as much written to reach the same point, even supposing the technology hadn't been improved a bit despite using the same flash type. This is due to having 3 times the capacity. I forgot where I read about that, though. Assuming that does not hold true, though... it's 600TB of space and you lost 3GB off the capacity, while drive performance is holding relatively steady. I've personally done 16TB in over a year in terms of writes to controller on my current SSD. So to even get to 100TB written it would take me over 6 years. Something better will be out by then.

I'm still on the fence about this deal, though. Am seriously considering it because the $/GB is at a great point and it's a decent drive to keep around for a very long time. Much fewer space restrictions than this current 240GB
 

StoleMyOwnCar

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
2,152
I've actually been reading more and more about TLC and while it's true that the write specs on the EVO probably far exceed most normal consumer workloads... I'm actually thinking the M500 is the better buy. The EVO is just slightly faster and has a few nifty software tools, but is it really worth an average of over 3x increase in lifespan when going MLC instead? IMO, probably not, especially since they have comparable price points (in fact usually M500 is cheaper). Sure the EVO might take longer than your lifetime to fail, but the MLC is sure to. I don't see any reason to go for it. Maybe just me.

Yep, been digging way too deep into this....
 

Low Roller

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
1,024
I've actually been reading more and more about TLC and while it's true that the write specs on the EVO probably far exceed most normal consumer workloads... I'm actually thinking the M500 is the better buy. The EVO is just slightly faster and has a few nifty software tools, but is it really worth an average of over 3x increase in lifespan when going MLC instead? IMO, probably not, especially since they have comparable price points (in fact usually M500 is cheaper).

Yep, been digging way too deep into this....
Nothing wrong with choosing an M500. I've used both EVO's and M500's. In real-world performance, it's impossible to tell if one is faster than the other.
 

Destruya

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
405
Evo = cheaper because less reliable?

EVO uses TLC NAND, which has a shorter lifespan than the MLC the Pro uses.

But 'shorter lifespan' in this case means a difference between 20 years at light/moderate usage for the EVO and ~50 for the Pro.
 
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
3,270
I've actually been reading more and more about TLC and while it's true that the write specs on the EVO probably far exceed most normal consumer workloads... I'm actually thinking the M500 is the better buy. The EVO is just slightly faster and has a few nifty software tools, but is it really worth an average of over 3x increase in lifespan when going MLC instead? IMO, probably not, especially since they have comparable price points (in fact usually M500 is cheaper). Sure the EVO might take longer than your lifetime to fail, but the MLC is sure to. I don't see any reason to go for it. Maybe just me.

Yep, been digging way too deep into this....

I've been digging as well since I'm looking to go 100% flash in my home VMware and Hyper-V lab. Since a simple Storage VMotion eats up GBs of writes, the longevity of the SSD is important. Due to this, I'm going with the M500 or M550 since they're priced attractively.
 

Citizen86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
4,572
EVO uses TLC NAND, which has a shorter lifespan than the MLC the Pro uses.

But 'shorter lifespan' in this case means a difference between 20 years at light/moderate usage for the EVO and ~50 for the Pro.

Only 20 years? That's just ridiculous... I still own all my hard drives from 20 years ago!
 

MiG29TangentBoy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
376
Just to clarify, I would get a 750 gb 840 Pro...if they made one. 500 gb just doesn't do it for me anymore.
 
Top